King v. Miller

Here, the district court's June 13, 2013, order enforced the portion of the amended divorce decree allowing respondent to exercise an option to take possession of the marital residence if appellant failed to pay for respondent's share within the specified time. An order enforcing a prior order is not appealable as a special order after final judgment. Gumm, 118 Nev. at 920, 59 P.3d at 1225. Moreover, to the extent the district court denied appellant's countermotion to modify the divorce decree, that countermotion was not based on a change in circumstances because the asserted circumstances occurred prior to the entry of the amended divorce decree and were raised in an identical motion filed before the amended decree. Thus, appellant's challenge to respondent's ownership of the marital residence, is simply an attack of the amended divorce decree. Burton, 99 Nev. at 700, 669 P.2d at 705. Therefore, we conclude that the district court's order is not appealable as a special order after final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(8). Further, because the portion of the district court's order awarding respondent attorney fees did not establish an amount of fees, but directed respondent's counsel to file a memorandum of fees and costs, the attorney fees award is not a final, appealable award. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, and we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.' Aa_A Hardesty 'In light of this order, we deny as moot appellant's motion for a stay. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947n cep, cc: Hon. William B. Gonzalez, District Judge, Family Court Division Robert E. Gaston, Settlement Judge Cheri M. King Radford J. Smith, Chtd. Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A ci(51049